An improved understanding of heterogeneities in dengue virus transmission might provide insights into biological and ecologic drivers and facilitate predictions of the magnitude, timing, and location of future dengue epidemics. To investigate dengue dynamics in urban Ho Chi Minh City and neighboring rural provinces in Vietnam, we analyzed a 10-year monthly time series of dengue surveillance data from southern Vietnam. The per capita incidence of dengue was lower in Ho Chi Minh City than in most rural provinces; annual epidemics occurred 1–3 months later in Ho Chi Minh City than elsewhere. The timing and the magnitude of annual epidemics were significantly more correlated in nearby districts than in remote districts, suggesting that local biological and ecologic drivers operate at a scale of 50–100 km. Dengue incidence during the dry season accounted for 63% of variability in epidemic magnitude. These findings can aid the targeting of vector-control interventions and the planning for dengue vaccine implementation.
Summary Background Few data are available to support the choice between the two currently available pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs), ten-valent PCV (PCV10) and 13-valent PCV (PCV13). Here we report a head-to-head comparison of the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of PCV10 and PCV13. Methods In this parallel, open-label, randomised controlled trial, healthy infants from two districts in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, were randomly allocated (in a 3:3:5:4:5:4 ratio), with use of a computer-generated list, to one of six infant PCV schedules: PCV10 in a 3 + 1 (group A), 3 + 0 (group B), 2 + 1 (group C), or two-dose schedule (group D); PCV13 in a 2 + 1 schedule (group E); or no infant PCV (control; group F). Blood samples were collected from infants between 2 months and 18 months of age at various timepoints before and after PCV doses and analysed (in a blinded manner) by ELISA and opsonophagocytic assay. The trial had two independent aims: to compare vaccination responses between PCV10 and PCV13, and to evaluate different schedules of PCV10. In this Article, we present results pertaining to the first aim. The primary outcome was the proportion of infants with an IgG concentration of at least 0·35 μg/mL for the ten serotypes common to the two vaccines at age 5 months, 4 weeks after the two-dose primary vaccination series (group C vs group E, per protocol population). An overall difference among the schedules was defined as at least seven of ten serotypes differing in the same direction at the 10% level. We also assessed whether the two-dose primary series of PCV13 (group E) was non-inferior at the 10% level to a three-dose primary series of PCV10 (groups A and B). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01953510 . Findings Of 1424 infants screened between Sept 30, 2013, and Jan 9, 2015, 1201 were allocated to the six groups: 152 (13%) to group A, 149 (12%) to group B, 250 (21%) to group C, 202 (17%) to group D, 251 (21%) to group E, and 197 (16%) to group F. 237 (95%) participants in group C (PCV10) and 232 (92%) in group E (PCV13) completed the primary vaccination series and had blood draws within the specified window at age 5 months, at which time the proportion of infants with IgG concentrations of at least 0·35 μg/mL did not differ between groups at the 10% level for any serotype (PCV10–PCV13 risk difference −2·1% [95% CI −4·8 to −0·1] for serotype 1; −1·3% [–3·7 to 0·6] for serotype 4; −3·4% [–6·8 to −0·4] for serotype 5; 15·6 [7·2 to 23·7] for serotype 6B; −1·3% [–3·7 to 0·6] for serotype 7F; −1·6% [–5·1 to 1·7] for serotype 9V; 0·0% [–2·7 to 2·9] for serotype 14; −2·1% [–5·3 to 0·9] for serotype 18C; 0·0% [–2·2 to 2·3] for serotype 19F; and −11·6% [–18·2 to −4·9] for serotype 23F). At the same timepoint, two doses of PCV13 were non-inferior to three doses of PCV10 for nine of the ten shared serotypes (excluding 6B). Reac...
IntroductionWHO recommends the use of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) as a priority. However, there are many countries yet to introduce PCV, especially in Asia. This trial aims to evaluate different PCV schedules and to provide a head-to-head comparison of PCV10 and PCV13 in order to generate evidence to assist with decisions regarding PCV introduction. Schedules will be compared in relation to their immunogenicity and impact on nasopharyngeal carriage of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae.Methods and analysisThis randomised, single-blind controlled trial involves 1200 infants recruited at 2 months of age to one of six infant PCV schedules: PCV10 in a 3+1, 3+0, 2+1 or two-dose schedule; PCV13 in a 2+1 schedule; and controls that receive two doses of PCV10 and 18 and 24 months. An additional control group of 200 children is recruited at 18 months that receive one dose of PCV10 at 24 months. All participants are followed up until 24 months of age. The primary outcome is the post-primary series immunogenicity, expressed as the proportions of participants with serotype-specific antibody levels ≥0.35 µg/mL for each serotype in PCV10.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research (EC00153) and the Vietnam Ministry of Health Ethics Committee. The results, interpretation and conclusions will be presented to parents and guardians, at national and international conferences, and published in peer-reviewed open access journals.Trial registration numberNCT01953510; Pre-results.
Highlights 1st study to directly compare effect of 2+1 schedule of PCV10 or PCV13 on carriage. Includes an unvaccinated comparator group. Both PCVs reduce carriage of serotypes in the corresponding vaccine. May be some differences between the vaccines in their impact on carriage. Majority of carriage was vaccine-type, so both vaccines likely to be beneficial.
Background Data are scarce from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to support the choice of vaccination schedule for the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV). We aimed to compare the immunogenicity of four different infant PCV10 schedules in infants in Vietnam.Methods In this single-blind, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial, infants aged 2 months were recruited by community health staff in districts 4 and 7 of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Eligible infants had no clinically significant maternal or prenatal history and were born at or after 36 weeks' gestation. Participants were randomly assigned (3:3:5:4:5:4) using block randomisation, stratified by district, to one of six PCV10 or PCV13 vaccination schedules. Here we report results for four groups: group A, who were given PCV10 at ages 2, 3, 4, and 9 months (a 3 + 1 schedule); group B, who were vaccinated at ages 2, 3, and 4 months (3 + 0 schedule); group C, who were vaccinated at ages 2, 4, and 9•5 months (2 + 1 schedule); and group D, who were vaccinated at ages 2 and 6 months (two-dose schedule). Laboratory-based assessors were masked to group allocation. Blood samples were collected at different prespecified timepoints between ages 3-18 months depending on group allocation, within 27-43 days after vaccination, and these were analysed for serotype-specific IgG and opsonophagocytic responses. Participants were followed-up until age 24 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of infants with serotype-specific IgG levels of 0•35 µg/mL or higher at age 5 months, analysed as a non-inferiority comparison (10% margin) of the two-dose and three-dose primary series (group C vs groups A and B combined). We also compared responses 4 weeks after two doses administered at either ages 2 and 4 months (group C) or at ages 2 and 6 months (group D). The primary endpoint was analysed in the per-protocol population. Reactogenicity has been reported previously. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01953510, and is now closed to accrual.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.